Utah continues push to eliminate public land

[hnt4life]

Thank you for the info and good luck with the sale. As for the dog farts, I recommend a lamb and rice food, and try to keep them from scrounging gut piles.

His dog has wicked bad farts.

 

[RobertD]

So, the TLDR of all of that is, yes the move to transfer is still alive in MT, if the tactics may alternate based on which party is in power. If the presidency goes to Biden, you will see increased calls to transfer & sell public land. If Trump remains POTUS, then we will continue to see the same management scenarios, just under federal mgt. The end result isn't so much outcomes for land as it is retaining power to make the decisions on how that land is managed.

Ben, can you unpack that last bit a little more for me? Are you saying, essentially, that under a Dem administration the transfer/sale campaign is reduced to sloganeering, but under a 2nd Trump term it'll be more subtle but more likely to make progress? Want to make sure I'm reading it correctly.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben, can you unpack that last bit a little more for me? Are you saying, essentially, that under a Dem administration the transfer/sale campaign is reduced to sloganeering, but under a 2nd Trump term it'll be more subtle but more likely to make progress? Want to make sure I'm reading it correctly.

Sure.

What I'm saying is that when the party that has the transfer & sale of public lands in their platform (GOP) is in power, you see those calls to actually transfer go away because they have the ability to enact policies that would essentially do the same thing that they want, just at the federal level.

For example: The Transfer crowd continually calls for increased logging, mining & O&G development on public lands, citing the evil hand of environmental regulations that slow a few projects down. When in power, they eliminate the regulations in place to protect habitat, etc, in favor of expedited development.

If Joe Biden wins, you will see an increase in the language around Transfer & sale because the people who were just in charge will suddenly be against federal ownership of these lands unless they are the ones in charge.

You don't have to transfer or sell public lands if you have the people in place to enact your real agenda - which is handing over public lands to people who don't care about the future of them, wildlife or outdoor recreation. There's a very real reason that DOI is staffed with oil, gas and mining lobbyists & lawyers.

 

[RobertD]

Sure.

What I'm saying is that when the party that has the transfer & sale of public lands in their platform (GOP) is in power, you see those calls to actually transfer go away because they have the ability to enact policies that would essentially do the same thing that they want, just at the federal level.

For example: The Transfer crowd continually calls for increased logging, mining & O&G development on public lands, citing the evil hand of environmental regulations that slow a few projects down. When in power, they eliminate the regulations in place to protect habitat, etc, in favor of expedited development.

If Joe Biden wins, you will see an increase in the language around Transfer & sale because the people who were just in charge will suddenly be against federal ownership of these lands unless they are the ones in charge.

You don't have to transfer or sell public lands if you have the people in place to enact your real agenda - which is handing over public lands to people who don't care about the future of them, wildlife or outdoor recreation. There's a very real reason that DOI is staffed with oil, gas and mining lobbyists & lawyers.

Crystal clear. Thanks for circling back and explaining.

 

[beginnerhunter]

Sure.

What I'm saying is that when the party that has the transfer & sale of public lands in their platform (GOP) is in power, you see those calls to actually transfer go away because they have the ability to enact policies that would essentially do the same thing that they want, just at the federal level.

For example: The Transfer crowd continually calls for increased logging, mining & O&G development on public lands, citing the evil hand of environmental regulations that slow a few projects down. When in power, they eliminate the regulations in place to protect habitat, etc, in favor of expedited development.

If Joe Biden wins, you will see an increase in the language around Transfer & sale because the people who were just in charge will suddenly be against federal ownership of these lands unless they are the ones in charge.

You don't have to transfer or sell public lands if you have the people in place to enact your real agenda - which is handing over public lands to people who don't care about the future of them, wildlife or outdoor recreation. There's a very real reason that DOI is staffed with oil, gas and mining lobbyists & lawyers.

Logging is first thing u mention? I can agree with most of your post, but not sure logging is always bad for wildlife. There's even a timber cut layer on onx.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Logging is first thing u mention? I can agree with most of your post, but not sure logging is always bad for wildlife. There's even a timber cut layer on onx.

I wasn't saying that logging was bad, just that it's one of the main reasons being cited for wanting to eliminate public lands. I do think there has been good, bipartisan progress towards removing some barriers to improved forestry practices, but the people pushing for transfer repeatedly use litigation as a proving point for transfer, while ignoring their desire to eliminate laws like the ESA, NEPA and FLPMA.

So, like all issues, it's complex, and all of these complex issues get reduced to sound bytes for a populace that can't get enough of shows like "the bachelor."

 

[Deleted member 20812]

So, like all issues, it's complex, and all of these complex issues get reduced to sound bytes for a populace that can't get enough of shows like "the bachelor."

"You're fired!"

 

[beginnerhunter]

I wasn't saying that logging was bad, just that it's one of the main reasons being cited for wanting to eliminate public lands. I do think there has been good, bipartisan progress towards removing some barriers to improved forestry practices, but the people pushing for transfer repeatedly use litigation as a proving point for transfer, while ignoring their desire to eliminate laws like the ESA, NEPA and FLPMA.

So, like all issues, it's complex, and all of these complex issues get reduced to sound bytes for a populace that can't get enough of shows like "the bachelor."

For sure. I just get concerned people lump logging, which can be beneficial to wildlife, in with mining, which is pretty much always only detrimental.

 

[Ben Lamb]

For sure. I just get concerned people lump logging, which can be beneficial to wildlife, in with mining, which is pretty much always only detrimental.

Mining, due to reclamation law & bonding requirements, is often times better in the long run than Oil & Gas Development, so we need to consider that as well.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

For sure. I just get concerned people lump logging, which can be beneficial to wildlife, in with mining, which is pretty much always only detrimental.

Any of them can be beneficial in their own way, and any of them can be detrimental. The devil is in the details.

 

[Irrelevant]

If I remember right didn't Renella have a reclamation guy on his podcast from coal country? Talked about all the wildlife benefits of a properly reclaimed mine? His website is horrible for searching that stuff.

 

[beginnerhunter]

Mining, due to reclamation law & bonding requirements, is often times better in the long run than Oil & Gas Development, so we need to consider that as well.

Tangentially, reminds me of the pebble mine fiasco. Seems hard to find many pebble apologists. But as I was listening to the meateater podcast I kept wondering what sort of proposal would the guest deem acceptable for a copper or gold mine? And if, as the guest conceded, those metals are necessary for green energy development, should the fed subsidize more environmentally friendly mining methods to make them more economically viable? Tradeoffs I guess.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Tangentially, reminds me of the pebble mine fiasco. Seems hard to find many pebble apologists. But as I was listening to the meateater podcast I kept wondering what sort of proposal would the guest deem acceptable for a copper or gold mine? And if, as the guest conceded, those metals are necessary for green energy development, should the fed subsidize more environmentally friendly mining methods to make them more economically viable? Tradeoffs I guess.

Yes, but part of those tradeoffs must recognize that we're running out of places to sacrifice in the name of development.

 

[BWALKER77]

The biggest bucks and bulls I have seen in the state of Montana were on reclaimed coal mine land.

 

[Bluffgruff]

The biggest bucks and bulls I have seen in the state of Montana were on reclaimed coal mine land.

But the issue is deeper than trophy hunting, or even creating some improved habitat that grows big bucks and bulls, especially as it pertains to public land transfer and potentially taking land out of the public trust where you have to then pay exorbitant fees just for access, if you can access it all, FOREVER. Once PLT transfer happens, there is no going back. And the GOP is responsible for all of that chatter because it benefits them the most.

 

[BWALKER77]

But the issue is deeper than trophy hunting, or even creating some improved habitat that grows big bucks and bulls, especially as it pertains to public land transfer and potentially taking land out of the public trust where you have to then pay exorbitant fees just for access, if you can access it all, FOREVER. Once PLT transfer happens, there is no going back. And the GOP is responsible for all of that chatter because it benefits them the most.

I wasnt speaking to PLT.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I wasnt speaking to PLT.

Exactly. If PLT happens, then you can kiss those gold standard reclamation requirements goodbye. It's far easier to buy a state than a congress.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

The biggest bucks and bulls I have seen in the state of Montana were on reclaimed coal mine land.

Which then begs the question is it a function of habitat or restricted access? Properly reclaimed coal mines certainly do offer quality habitat. Not sure it's any better than what wasn't mined in the first place though.

 

[BWALKER77]

Exactly. If PLT happens, then you can kiss those gold standard reclamation requirements goodbye. It's far easier to buy a state than a congress.

The reclamation I was speaking of was on a mix of state, Tribal and private lands. FWIW.

 

[BWALKER77]

Which then begs the question is it a function of habitat or restricted access? Properly reclaimed coal mines certainly do offer quality habitat. Not sure it's any better than what wasn't mined in the first place though.

Reclaimed lands are like a food plot for wildlife. Much more productive than the untouched lands around it. Access was restricted but not completely so. Employees and tribal members could hunt it. And one of the companies other properties were enrolled in block management.